Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Michael Orlitzky <michael@××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD : .ebuild is only bash
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 02:23:44
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD : .ebuild is only bash by Zac Medico
1 On 03/13/2012 10:05 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
2 > On 03/13/2012 06:42 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
3 >> Leaving it such that the PM has to enforce things like "don't have
4 >> multiple EAPI assignments" means by default, one of them isn't going
5 >> to... leading to the ebuilds breaking... specifically the common case
6 >> being the ebuild becoming acclimated to some quirk of portage.
7 >
8 > My intention is for PMS to specify the search algorithm that's used to
9 > probe the EAPI, and also for it to specify that package managers must
10 > treat an ebuild as invalid if the probed EAPI is not identical to the
11 > one that's obtained from bash. If all package managers adhere strictly
12 > to these two requirements, then we won't have any incompatibilities
13 > between package managers here.
15 Someone should really throw up a table on wiki.g.o with a comparison of
16 the proposed methods. IIRC, the pros/cons of this in contrast to GLEP 55
17 are something like,
19 Pro:
21 * We don't need to change the filename, and "ebuild" is nice
22 * GLEP 55 pissed people off, and was already rejected
23 * Some people think the EAPI rightfully belongs in the ebuild
25 Cons:
27 * New features can't be implemented immediately because PMs
28 have to catch up first.
29 * Slight performance hit
30 * Old package managers on out-of-date systems will barf on it
31 * It involves using a magic identifier, e.g. a comment. Magic is
32 bad, and the fact that messing with a comment can break your PM
33 is counter-intuitive.
34 * Some people think the EAPI rightfully belongs in the filename
37 and the last one is worth the most points to everyone anyway.


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFD : .ebuild is only bash Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>